The integration of natural science and spirituality is accomplished by putting consciousness into the equations of the quantized relativistic model of reality. This approach, with a quantum calculus based on the precise empirical data provided by the Large Hadron Collider, leads to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical third form that must exist in addition to mass and energy, in order for there to be a stable universe.

Saturday, June 30, 2018

“There is no question that there is an unseen
world. The problem is, how far is it from midtown and how late is it open?”
–Woody Allen

I usually try to make my posts as understandable as I
can, by providing the background for a given discourse so that the reader can grasp
the message I wish to convey. But in this case, I’m going to forgo any elucidation
of contextual predication and accept that those for whom this discussion might
be meaningful will understand it, and anyone else will dismiss it as
incomprehensible.

So-called “new age” people, and sometimes others, talk
about “another dimension” and “planes of existence”. These are inexact and
misleading terms that, frankly, indicate to me that those using them probably
don’t actually know what they are talking about. For example, I’ve heard
someone say: “The aliens exist in another dimension!” Or: My spiritual guides
exist on another plane of existence.”

Nobody can exist “in a dimension”. A dimension
is a measure of extent like length, width or height.

If those using the term another dimension have any inkling of what they are trying to
convey, what they should say is another
dimensional domain. Let me explain: A point (mathematical singularity) is a
zero-dimensional domain; a line as a one-dimensional domain; a plane is a
two-dimensional domain; a volume is a three-dimensional domain, and space-time
is a four (or more) dimensional domain. Now, the question is not whether there
are higher-dimensional domains. The problem is, how do we get there from here?

The idea of “existing on a plane” comes from the
mistaken idea that we literally exist on a plane, the “Earth-plane”. We don’t.
We actually exist in a multi-dimensional reality that starts with a three-dimensional domain. The surface of the Earth
may be thought of as a plane, but, if you rise above it, but not too far,
because if you ascend high enough (about 36,000 feet in an airliner), you will
see that it is actually a curved surface, with bumps and divots in it. This
should bring the realization that a two-dimensional domain can only be seen as
such from the third dimension. This brings to light one of the invariants of
dimensionometry: the recognition of the existence of an n-dimensional domain
can only be obtained from a vantage point in an (n+1) dimensional domain.

Thinking about this gives you the conceptualization of
multi-dimensional reality. In TDVP, with the application of a mathematical procedure
I developed in 1989, called Dimensional Extrapolation, we have derived the mathematical
nature of the dimensions of domains beyond 3-D. But mathematical derivations
are reflections of the nature of reality, not actualizations of it. The ability
to be able to describe something verbally and mathematically is the first step
to experiencing it. That is the power of science and mathematics, they allow us
to conceptualize and visualize reality beyond what is available to us through
the physical senses.

Are there methods, processes and exercises that can
help us to raise the level of our consciousness to the point of actually
experiencing higher dimensions directly? Yes, I believe there are. This is one
of the practical applications of TDVP. An understanding of TDVP provides a
basis from which to ascend into higher dimensions. Is this the only way? No,
but it does unite science and spirituality.

We live in a domain of nine finite dimensions, embedded
in a 10-dimensional transfinite domain, embedded in the Infinite. How do I know
this? The mathematics of TDVP, the Calculus of Distinctions indicates this, and
I have experienced it briefly several times, and experience it partially all
the time. How can one become aware of extra-dimensional reality? Remember I indicated
above that describing something verbally and mathematically is the first step
to experiencing it,

Verbalization and mathematical description are just two
aspects of the same thing, communicating experience with symbols. Most of us
remember, as children, saying a word or phrase over and over again until it
becomes meaningless, just sounds, conveying nothing. This is what someone
speaking a language you are not familiar with sounds like, just noise.
Different than the barking of a dog or the cawing of a crow, but just sounds.

Learning mathematics is exactly like learning another
language, only it is harder because no one speaks pure mathematics. People do,
however, speak German, Spanish, Hebrew, Hindi, etc. So, learning to speak
another language is easier than learning advanced mathematics. So, start there.
The average person who speaks only English, can learn to speak enough Spanish to
get by in about a month if she/he puts his/her mind to it. German is a little
harder because the grammar is more complex, but English is basically a Germanic
language without the grammar and a few Latin-based words thrown in, so it’s not
that hard once you get beyond over the grammar. Dutch and Swedish are “in-between”
languages, somewhat intermediate between German and English.

Why should you learn another language? It will help
you think in terms beyond your normal habits of speech. Learning to understand
and speak another language literally opens a door todifferent world. Slavic, Cyrillic, French, Arabic,
and Oriental languages really open doors to different ways of thinking, and
learning mathematics is like learning Greek or Latin. Learning math as a
language, not just a tool to use to balance your checkbook or calculate square
feet of floor space, allows you to think in math, and that will open the door
to TDVP and extra dimensions.

The step (leap) from writing symbols and making sounds
to the actualization of the meaning of those symbols and sounds in direct
experience is a big one. The step from intellectual comprehension of the
mathematical procedure of dimensional extrapolation (moving from one
dimensional domain to another) to directly experiencing it is definitely not an
easy one, but one very much worthwhile, because it enables you to perceive
matter, energy, space, and time from a new perspective. The next step, however,
attaining the awareness of all levels of consciousness of fewer dimensions than
the one you occupy is an even bigger jump, but the view is tremendous.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Science is not now, and
never will be, a complete, unchanging body of knowledge. Our understanding progresses
slowly, for the most part, by incremental discovery of the details of reality, but,
occasionally science leaps forward, with the sudden discovery of a new and more
productive way of thinking about reality. Thomas Kuhn, physicist and historian,
in his insightful treatise, The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions, called these sudden changes paradigm shifts.

A paradigm shift occurs
when there is a complete overthrow of one or more of the basic assumptions of
science. For example, the classical assumption that space and time are the same
everywhere was overthrown by Einstein’s discovery of the mathematical
relationship between the motion and acceleration of the observer and the
measurement of space and time. And Planck’s discovery of the quantization of
energy and mass overthrew the notion of the apparent infinite divisibility of
reality. What basic assumption does TDVP
overthrow? The assumption of scientific materialism. With the discovery of the
mathematical necessity of the existence of a non-physical aspect of reality, TDVP
puts consciousness into the equations of science, and refutes the assumption of
scientific materialism, held by most scientists for centuries.

German physicist Max
Planck, saw past scientific materialism and started the revolution culminating
with TDVP. In the early 20th century. He said:

"I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing,
postulates consciousness."
– Max Planck

Einstein added to the developing
revolution with his special and general theories of relativity. For the first
time in the history of modern science, the state of the observer relative to
the dynamics of moving objects was found to affect the observations and
measurements of physical reality. Did Einstein, like his personal friend Max
Planck, believe that there is something real beyond physical reality? His spirituality
is revealed in the following statement:

A paradigm shift always
brings new science, and new science requires new math. Just as in every other
paradigm shift, e.g., Newton’s laws of motion, relativity and quantum physics,
TDVP requires new math. That new math is the Calculus of Dimensional
Distinctions (CoDD), a mathematical system logically prior to conventional
mathematics, adapted for application to quantum reality.

In answering the question
“What is TDVP?”, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize and clarify the point
that the logic of TDVP shines a bright light on the primacy of consciousness.
Why is this important? Because recognizing the primacy of consciousness is the
key to understanding how and why applications of the logic of the CoDD answers
questions and resolves paradoxes that have persisted unanswered and unresolved for
decades in the current mainstream paradigm of scientific materialism. This fact
about TDVP may sound amazing, and you might expect its answers and proofs to be
complex and difficult to comprehend, but the logic is so basic that I believe
that I can explain it in simple terms that anyone can understand.

Because the experience of
consciousness is primary, it is best to start with a brief discussion of
consciousness. Everyone experiences it, but no one is able to define it
completely satisfactorily because it is the essence of what we are, the essence
of being itself. Expecting the human mind
to analyze consciousness is like expecting an eye to be able to see itself
without a mirror. Whatever consciousness is, without it, there simply would be
no awareness, no knowledge of this, or any other world. Everything we do, know
or think depends upon it. To define
something means to compare it with something already known, but consciousness
is unique; there is nothing with which to compare it, and all analogies always
fall short. As the primary experience of self,
consciousness simply is the essence of self-aware existence. As Max Planck
observed: “we cannot get behind consciousness”.

We can, however, identify
and describe the actions performed by consciousness: The actions of
consciousness arise from within consciousness itself as the desire for experience. That desire is propagated
sequentially from self to other-than-self in three stages: 1. The realization
of Identity, 2. The formation of a
conscious Intent and 3. The
actualization of intent as an Impact
on other-than-self. Consciousness thus becomes an observer, and a participant
in reality by the actions of drawing distinctions and organizing those
distinctions into logical patterns.

All possible forms of
reality knowable by a conscious observer, arise from the initial act of
separation: i.e., the creation of the distinction of self from everything else.
Any distinction is triadic, consisting of: 1. That which is distinguished, 2.
That from which it is distinguished, and 3. The conscious self that draws the
distinction. For the purpose of differential experience, the conscious self
must consider itself to be separate from that which it is able to distinguish,
and thus the distinction of self from other is the first distinction. All forms
of objective reality arise from this initial act of severance, and while it may
seem that we may separate reality any way we please, the logic of the CoDD
shows us that the basic forms arising from the act of separation are the same.
The framework of reality is that of embedded dimensional domains, much like the
layers of an onion. The basis of all conceivable symbolic representation, all logic,
language, and all knowledge of, and understanding of any reality, is the conscious
action of the drawing of distinctions. This is why the CoDD provides a powerful
tool for analyzing reality.

The most basic
description of reality possible, is a multi-dimensional mosaic, a picture of
reality composed of multiples of the most basic distinction possible; and the
most basic distinction possible is the smallest possible quantum of the
substance of reality. In the TDVP, that smallest quantum of mass that can be
distinguished in the three-or-more dimensional reality we experience, and used
as the basic unit of distinction, is the electron.

At this point, I must ask
you to accept an a priori assumption,
an assumption that is the basic foundational hypothesis of TDVP. The proof that
this assumption is valid comes in the form of answers to questions and
resolutions of paradoxes in the current scientific paradigm that cannot be
obtained in any other way. A number of these have been published under the
authorship of Close and Neppe or Neppe and Close. The assumption is the
proposition that there is a single elementary measure which applies to all aspects
of reality; a quantum equivalence unit to which all quantifiable aspects of
reality can be mathematically related. In TDVP, we call that quantum
equivalence unit the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE), for reasons
that will become clearer as we proceed.

This is a significant
departure from the current methods of mathematical physics, and a deliberate
extension of Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy to include quantization
of all observable and measurable aspects of finite reality. Planck started down
this path by developing a system of “natural” units that became known as Planck
units, with five universal constants set equal to unity, making them natural
units of measurement, and Einstein carried the ball a little farther by showing
us the mathematical equivalence of mass and energy with E = mc2. In Planck units, c, the speed of light, is one of the five universal constants naturalized
to unity. Notice that when c is
naturalized to 1, Einstein’s famous equation becomes simply E = m, making energy and mass
equivalent in Planck units. In TDVP, we naturalize all of the measures of
reality, mass, energy, space, and time to unity, which naturalizes c, but not the other universal
constants which were naturalized by Planck for computational convenience.

The TRUE is the basic
unit of the calculus of distinctions, a system of mathematical logic designed
for application to quantum reality. I use the word “calculus” here in the
broadest possible sense, to mean a system of logical processes by which expressions
representing a distinction or a combination of distinctions are transformed to
other, equivalent distinctions by the fundamental operations of mathematics
re-defined for quantum mathematics. Defining the TRUE based on the electron,
links the CoDD to reality, so that the the logic of the CoDD correlates directly
with the structure of reality. Application of this new quantum math across all
scales of measurement, from the quantum to the cosmos reveals the true nature
of reality. With TDVP, we not only get to know God’s thoughts, we get a glimpse
of how God’s mind works!

I do not claim to have
created this major scientific paradigm shift single-handedly. The new science
of TDVP is built on foundations laid by many scientists; notably, it stands on
the infinities of Georg Cantor and the Diophantine equations of Pierre de
Fermat; and more recently, on the work of Planck, Einstein, Pauli, Von Neumann,
Gӧdel, and others. I have been blessed to have the support of a number of
brilliant people, including Dr. David Stewart, PhD, a geophysicist who was my
roommate in college, and for that reason, has listened to my ideas about math
and science for more than 60 years, my wife Jacqui, whose unwavering support I’ve
enjoyed for more than 40 years, and I’ve been working in equal collaboration
for more than 10 years with Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, who, without question, is
the most brilliant and accomplished polymath alive today.

Recently, TDVP is being
considered favorably by an increasing number of scientists, including Dr. Adrian
Klein in Israel, Dr. Gary Schwartz, PhD, a respected author and professor at
the University of Arizona in Tucson, and several members of the Academy for the
Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences
(AAPS). Further exploration and promotion of TDVP has been energized recently by
the enthusiasm of Dr. Surendra Pokharna, PhD physicist visiting from India. The
only question I have now is whether this paradigm shift from the dead end of
materialism into the expansive realm of consciousness and spirituality will be
accepted by mainstream scientists in time to save humanity from the
materialistic path to self-destruction. I am optimistically hopeful that it
will happen within my lifetime.

With the discovery of
gimmel, the indifferent particles assumed to exist in sub-atomic physics and galactic
cosmology are gone, replaced by vortices of energy spinning in multiple planes
of rotation. I think it is fair to say that TDVP is like a colon cleanse for
the body of modern science: The lifeless dirt and grime of materialism are
flushed out and swept away by the living energy of dynamic vortices infused
with conscious meaning and purpose.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

I spent most of my
childhood here in Southern Missouri, and the kind of rainstorm with heavy
downpour that we had this morning was typical of what we called “spring rains” which
usually occurred in early April in the 1940s and 50s, not late June. Rain this
time of the year was mostly occasional spotty showers from cumulus clouds building
up in the afternoon, not the several hours of downpour at any time of day or
night that we have experienced for several years now.

I am probably about as
qualified to comment on global warming as anyone alive today, for two reasons:
First, being more than eighty years old, I have lived through some of the
greatest environmental crises in human history, and second, I have a PhD in environmental
science and engineering, and my PhD thesis was on the environmental impact of
human activity on water resources. I was one of seven charter members of the
USGS Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group formed in 1967, and was
involved in the modeling of environmental systems for more than 10 years. The
Systems Group consisted primarily of PhDs from Harvard, Stanford and Johns
Hopkins Universities, and we were involved in state-of-the-art modeling of
environmental systems, including the modeling of storm cells developing and moving
along cold fronts and cyclonic storm systems, as well as long-term effects of
natural and man-made phenomena on the ecosphere of the planet.

I can tell you that there
are many environmental trends indicating trhat global warming is happening, including the
northward migration of animal species like the armadillo and the brown recluse
spider. A study of historical records and physical evidence like tree-rings, polar
ice-boring cores and geologic strata indicates that climate changes similar to,
and even more dramatic than what we are experiencing now, have occurred many
times in the past. That is not to say that human activities have not
contributed to this warming trend, but the very real underlying natural cycles
will not be denied, in spite of human activities.

I can tell you, from
direct experience from the 1930s until the present, and from the study of
government data, that the effects of human activities were much greater from
the 1920s until the 60s than they are now. I can remember “red mud” rain
falling in Southern Missouri from wind-blown dust carried from the “dust-bowl”
of Kansas and Oklahoma, caused by over-farming of the land and years of drought. Coal was the major fuel for heat in the
Midwest in the 1940s because much of the timber had been clear cut in the 20’s
to build cities in the East. A layer of black soot covered everything in cities
like St. Louis and Chicago. I remember staying with relatives in St. Louis for
a while when I was five, and my father had a construction job in St. Louis County.
When I played outside even for a few minutes, I would be covered with the black
soot that was everywhere and my mother would have to wash my clothes and I
would have to bathe to get rid of the grime. I can still remember the smell of
coal smoke. Many people died of tuberculosis from breathing the polluted air.

Less than 100 years ago,
people died in droves around the world from air pollution. Because of industrial development in the US and Europe, from
the late 1800s until the middle of the 20th century, air and water pollution were
rampant. In 1948, industrial air pollution created a deadly smog that
asphyxiated 20 people in Donora, Pennsylvania, and made 7,000 more very ill. Smog and soot had many serious
health impacts on the residents of the world’s large cities. Only 66 years ago,
when I was in high school in 1952, pollutants killed at least 4,000 people in
London over the course of several days. Acid rain, first recorded in the 1850s,
was another problem resulting from the burning of coal in plants and homes. The
release of sulfur and nitrogen compounds into the atmosphere negatively
impacted plants, fish, soil, forests and some building materials. Some Eastern
US and European rivers were so polluted with industrial waste that almost nothing
could live in them, and they were clogged with floating debris.

I worked as an actuarial
mathematician in downtown Los Angeles in 1960, when the smog was so thick, you
could see it hanging under the efflorescent lights in the office building where
I worked. A deep breath was almost always followed by an involuntary cough! Smog
alerts were common, during which the elderly and very young were warned to stay
indoors.

We’ve come a long way
since 1960, and the majority of people
alive today have no idea how bad air and water pollution was in those days, and
therefore have no idea what tremendous progress has been made over the last 60
years in the cleanup of our environment. Despite the progress, global warming
has not only continued, it has accelerated. The data show that human activities
don’t have as much effect on global trends as we thought they did in the 1960s.
Natural cycles are still dominant. But politicians will magnify or minimize the
effect of the contribution of human activities on global climate change,
depending on their political agendas.

Monday, June 25, 2018

Recently, a physicist
said to me: “While infinity may be a useful concept, it does not actually
exist.” I respectfully disagree. Let me see if I can explain why.

In TDVP, using the logic
of the calculus of dimensional distinctions (CoDD) and Triadic Rotational Units
of Equivalence (TRUE) Analysis, we may investigate the question of whether the
concept of infinity is an existential
reality (I use the word ‘existential’ here as it’s root meaning, not in the
more diffuse sense of the philosophy of existentialism), or a convenient mathematical
and theological fiction.

Why is the mathematical
logic of the TDVP appropriate for investigating this question about infinity?
Because it combines the basic concepts of pure mathematics with the basic concepts
of physics. It does this by defining the basic distinction of pure mathematics as
equivalent with the smallest mass of quantum entity, the electron. This ties
the mathematics of the CoDD to the mathematical structure of the physical
universe.

Infinity as a useful
concept in mathematics

In
contemporary mathematics, infinity is the concept
of a state or object being larger than any number of units of measurement, no
matter how large or small the units are. When used in the context of “infinitely
small," infinity is the concept
of an object that is smaller
than any single measurable unit, no matter how small the unit is. Special care
must be taken to be sure that infinity is not erroneously
treated as a number, because attempting to treat infinity as an actual number
can lead to paradoxes. So, for contemporary mathematicians, infinity exists
only as an abstract concept. The symbol used by mathematicians to indicate the concept of infinity is ∞.

Infinity is also used in the definition of the
cardinality of a set of objects as in a list, array, or ordered sequence of objects
that does not have a finite number of elements. The set of positive integers is
a good example. Again, one must be careful to avoid thinking of infinity as an actual
number, because doing so can lead to confusion. For example, the set of
integers and the set of even integers are both infinite, despite the second set
being contained within the first set. Infinity is also used in the theory limits.
Some functions approach a specific finite value as the independent variable in
the function approaches zero infinitely closely, while other functions may
approach infinity as the variable approaches zero. The concept of a function
"approaching infinity" means that it grows larger without bound.

For macro-scale analytical geometry,
with applications of integral and differential calculus, the concept of
infinity is very useful, if continuity of space and time can be assumed. Determination
of rocket trajectory and satellite orbits are good examples. In problems involving
finite discontinuities in variables of extent and content, however, integral
and differential calculus cannot be used, and contemporary mathematicians must
resort to cumbersome finite-difference equations.

Georg Cantor’s Infinities

From antiquity, many philosophers
and mathematicians contributed to the study of infinity, but it was Georg
Cantor in the nineteenth century who established infinity as a respected mathematical
subject, even though he didn’t get the recognition he deserved in his lifetime.
Most of the other mathematicians of his time denounced his work as “religious
philosophy”, not mathematics. Despite the disdain of his peers, Cantor created
modern set theory single-handedly by defining the concept of one-to-one
correspondences between sets. He started by demonstrating that the set of integers
(whole numbers) can be aligned in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of fractions,
and concluded that these two sets have the same infinity. This led to his most important
discovery, when he proved that there are infinitely many infinities, of
different sizes. For example, the infinity of points in three-dimensional space
is much larger than the infinity of points on a line because three-dimensional space
contains an infinite number of lines.

Infinity as used in
Theology

For theologians,
God's infinity is defined as something distinctly different than mathematical infinity. In mathematics, the concept of
infinitely large is derived from the concept of enumeration in the finite world
of our experience by recognizing the impossibility of ever coming to the end of
being able to add one to any number, no matter how large it gets; and the
concept of infinitely small is conceived of by dividing unity by those larger
and larger numbers obtained by the process of addition to get smaller and
smaller numbers, ad infinitum. On the
other hand, theologians claim that our ability to build infinity from the finite, to understand that
we can keep applying the fundamental operations of addition and division over
and over, getting a new result each time, is grounded in the idea of the
theological infinite as an attribute of God.

Theologians
believe that God is infinite in a way that the finite mind can never understand;
and that God's qualities cannot be determined by the addition of parts. Thus,
God is not a completed whole, but rather, a Whole Being without limits'.[Leibniz,
New Essays on Human Understanding, trans. Peter Remnant and Jonathan
Bennett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 157ff.]

Infinity as a necessary
concept in TDVP

In the CoDD, the quantum
mathematics of the TDVP, we have shown by the mathematical process of Dimensional
Extrapolation, that any domain of n dimensions is embedded in a dimensional
domain of n+1 dimensions. This means that the nine mathematically-definable finite-dimensional
domains of the reality we experience is embedded in infinity. The forms that
make up the elementary vortices that we can observe and quantify in 3S-1t, are
conveyed from the logical structures of infinity (the mind of God, if you will)
across the six dimensions of consciousness and time by conveyance equations containing
gimmel, into the three-dimensional domain of everyday observation. However, as
shown by quantum experiments like the double-slit and delayed-choice
experiments, these forms are non-local (i.e., existing as potentials throughout
infinity and the finite domains embedded in infinity) until specific distinctions
are drawn by a conscious observer.

CONCLUSION

In the ultimate scheme of
things, Infinity is real, not just a mathematical fiction. Without Infinity,
there would be no gimmel, and, as demonstrated in the TDVP with the logic of
the CoDD, without gimmel, there would be no universe.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

I believe we are at the point in
human history where science and spirituality must be integrated if we are to
survive as a species.

Science based on materialism, the
metaphysical belief that reality is nothing more than matter and energy
interacting in space and time, is not capable of saving us from destroying
ourselves. In fact, it increases the probability that we will. Mainstream
science today is not equipped to investigate the deeper questions that need to
be answered concerning the meaning and purpose of life, consciousness and
spiritual experiences. It can, however, be augmented and expanded to include mind,
consciousness and spirituality as part of the legitimate jurisdiction of scientific
investigation. And it is critical that this is done soon.

The first step toward
integrating science and spirituality is the rejection of the idea, still strongly
held in mainstream science today, that science must be limited to the
investigation of physical phenomena. This attitude is a relic of the past, a dark
time when scientists were struggling to establish a rational approach to the study
of the nature of reality. To survive and promote scientific inquiry, they had
to avoid being labeled as practitioners of witchcraft and stay on the good side
of organized religious authorities, who were torturing and executing heretics
i.e., anyone who dared disagree with their dogma.

Ironically, the next step
toward the integration of science and spirituality came from a deep study of
physics, the very most basic physicalist approach to science, the study of matter, energy, space,
and time. It was the discovery of a non-physical feature of subatomic reality acting
as an organizer at the level of quarks that opened the door through which
science may escape the dead end of materialism.

This volumetric organizer we
call gimmel proved to be mathematically necessary for the combination of
up-quarks and down-quarks to form stable atomic and subatomic structures that
make up the building blocks of the physical universe. Without gimmel, no stable
life-supporting atoms and molecules could form. Even if, after the big bang, a
stable particle formed as a random event, without gimmel, it would quickly
decay back to the entropy of the randomness of debris flying away from an explosion.

The discovery of the
existence of gimmel, and the way it relates to the mass, energy and the dynamics
of the physical universe, working with Dr. Vernon Neppe in 2011, allowed me to
put consciousness into the equations of the laws of physics, something I had
been trying to find a way to do for more than 30 years. One of the first
mathematical clues I found was published in an appendix of my first book, the Book of Atma, published in 1977,
which was a book primarily about spiritual evolution.

I explored the clues
further in my second book, Infinite
Continuity a theory integrating Relativity and Quantum Physics, published
in 1990, and I introduced the concept of the necessary existence of a non-physical
receptor in the brain in a poster presentation called the Case for a Non-Quantum Receptor at Tucson II, toward a science
of Consciousness, in 1996. This theme was developed further in my second book, Transcendental Physics, first published
in 1997, and re-released in 2000. Eight years later, Dr. Vernon Neppe and I
began working together, combining his ideas about vortices as the basis of
physical structure at all levels of the physical universe with my
transcendental physics to produce the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm
(TDVP). Our research has resulted in the publication of a major book: Reality Begins with Consciousness in
2011, and a number of articles and papers since.

The point of this post is
that now, with the discovery of gimmel, a non-physical aspect of reality, we
are at last on the threshold of a new post-materialist science that expands the
scope of rational science to include the study of consciousness, mind and
spirit in the same logical framework in all of the different fields of science
and technology. As new exciting discoveries have surfaced over the past 10
years from the application of TDVP and the quantum mathematics I developed from
G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in 1986,
a system of mathematics I call the Calculus of Distinctions, more proof of the
validity of this approach, in the form of explanations of the paradoxes of the
current theory, and correlation with empirical evidence is being revealed
almost daily.

Discovery of the real existence
of a non-physical substance that shapes the nature of physical reality expands the
ontology of reality to include consciousness, and eliminates materialism as a
viable metaphysical basis of epistemology. When this discovery filters down to
the average person, as it will when practical applications of the new paradigm
become well known, the trend toward chaos, fueled by the frustration and ultimate
disillusion of materialism will be reversed as science reveals the meaning and
purpose of human existence.

If anyone reading this can
offer any assistance in the dissemination of this work heralding a major
paradigm shift with a real breakthrough integrating science and spirituality,
please contact me on Facebook Messenger, Dr. Neppe at www.BrainVoyage.com, or the Academy for
the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences at https://www.aapsglobal.com. I believe that getting this
new science going beyond materialism is urgent.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

We sometimes get the
question: “So, WHAT IS TDVP??? What does it mean? –In one simple sentence,
please”!! TDVP is our (Close and Neppe) attempt to explain things in a way that
will allow us to answer any question we may think of to ask. “Oh, then it’s a
Theory of Everything, right?”

Well, yes and no. If you mean it as physicists think of it, where everything is matter and energy in space-time, then yes, but if you mean a REAL theory of everything, then no. A theory of everything has to have
everything in it, and since 1931, with the proof of Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorems,
we’ve known that no consistent logical system is ever complete. If reality is a
consistent logical system, which I believe is a self-evident fact, otherwise
there could be no laws of nature, then there can never be a theory of
everything. With all due respect to the super-intelligent logicians who have
struggled with this question, talking about the logic of Boole, Turing machines
and artificial intelligence, it is really quite simple: Anyone with a bright
two or three-year-old, already knows this, because he/she has experienced some
version of the following verbal exchange:

“Daddy, Mommy, why is the
sky blue?”

Because air
scatters blue light more than any other color, sweetheart.

And, as any parent knows,
any subsequent answer whatsoever, will be met with another ‘Why?’ followed with another
‘because’, and another ‘why?’, ad
infinitum.

To the true believer in materialism, TDVP may well be a four-letter word! But many people would like to know what it is; not in mathematical or scientific jargon, but in plain English. Just what do these four letters signify? Let me see if I can answer.

There can be many four-letter words with many different meanigs.

Using the formula for permutations (mathematicians’ fancy word for combinations with repetition allowed, e.g.: AARP, BARB, CROC, DADS. EKES, FOOF, GOGO, HAHA, IBID, JAZZ, KOOK, LULL, MAMA, etc.), P = 264 equals exactly 456,976 different four-letter combinations can be formed from the 26 letters of the English alphabet. However, not all of them are used as words. For example, ZQPR and XJOX are not words. Computer searches of English dictionaries reveal that there are around 5,000 four-letter words used in the English language. So, just using four-letter words, a lot of thoughts can be conveyed, with meanings as varied as the acceptable and pleasing softness of GOLD, to the unacceptable nastiness of TURD. Now, add to that four-letter acronyms that can stand for four different related ideas, and you may have an idea of the power that any four letters can have.

Notice that letters and combinations of letters are neutral and meaningless by themselves. It is not the words or acronyms, but the thoughts your mind associates with them that pleases or offends. Letters and words are just symbols that may serve to please or annoy, enlighten or confuse. So, when you see the four letters TDVP in my blog posts, are they meaningful or confusing? Obviously, TDVP is not a word, it’s an acronym, but what does it convey? does it help or annoy? Is it a golden key to understanding, or a repulsive turd?

So, what is TDVP?

It stands for the Triadic
Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, where by ‘Triadic’ we mean three-fold. By ‘dimension’
we mean measurable extent. ‘Vortical’ means spinning, like a tornado or whirlpool;
and ‘Paradigm’ means a logically structured pattern of symbols describing
everything we know about reality at this point in time. In these blogs, as well
as in a number of papers, books and articles, we have explained what we mean by
triadic, dimensional, vortical and paradigm in great detail. But when is
explaining enough?

Albert Einstein is quoted
as saying: “If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it
yourself.” In the case of relativity, he must have meant a six-year-old
with an IQ of around 160 or above. And TDVP is an order of magnitude more
complex that general relativity.

He also said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

It seems that it is a
widespread characteristic of human nature to conflate, confuse and
misunderstand.

But, somewhere between these
two quotes, you’ll find the twenty-five-words-or-less definition of TDVP. Here’s
my attempt:

TDVP is a shift from belief
in scientific materialism to an understanding of reality that includes
consciousness in the equations, and spirituality in the paradigm.

That’s25 words believe it or not!

Einstein also said:

“There
are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The
other is as though everything is a miracle.”

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Before we bow down at the
Alter of scientific materialism, because of the things it gives us, let’s have
a look at what it really is. What we call modern science, rooted in the
metaphysics of materialism, is really very new on this planet. For a brief moment
in history it is like a new toy on Christmas, a shiny object distracting us
from the deeper mystery of reality, and most likely a passing fancy. Science is
just one result of human curiosity, a poorly organized effort to find out what
nature is hiding from us.

I don’t think it was an
accident that that I discovered science about the same time I discovered that
girls were hiding something very exciting under their clothes. The realization
that there are exotic features of reality being hidden from us, is what
motivates us to find a way to uncover them. The more exotic and unbelievable
they seem to be, the more excited we get!

But what happens when you
uncover the reality behind a mystery? It is no longer mysterious. We may choose
to be satisfied with what we’ve uncovered, --for a while-- but eventually,
sooner or later, we will be motivated to probe deeper, looking for new mystery.
The excitement of having a new car wears off about the time it needs new tires,
new seat covers, or a new transmission.

If the universe and the
opposite sex were so simple that everything could be known about them, and if we
could enjoy the luxury of a true “theory of everything”, We would not be
satisfied. No, in fact, we would be quite disappointed. If the materialist
scientist’s theory of everything could actually be realized, and everything
that could be known about reality were known, it would be like discovering that
the person you thought you couldn’t live without was actually a very boring
reflection of your own empty self. But True Love is forever new, forever exciting.

Fortunately, reality is
not just matter and energy interracting in time and space. There is something very, very exciting hiding behind the façade of
dead matter, empty space, dissipating energy, and this moment in time, and that
mysterious something, that exciting essence of reality, will forever lure us on,
far beyond the disappointment of the merely physical, beyond the dead end of
materialism.The finite physical universe ends with the finite light-speed spin
of the smallest finite quantum of mass and energy; but Reality just begins when
you step into the Infinite and science merges with spirituality.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

A new Neppe-Close paper on Science and Spirituality has been published in the IQNEXUS Journal. The publication date is given as 06/01/18 in the journal, but it has been updated since then, and may be updated again with minor detail in the near future. To read the paper, click on iqnexus.org/Graphics/Mag/IQNJ%2010-2%202018.pdf, or copy and paste into your browser.

If this doesnt work for some unknown reason --as you may know, computers are weird and may do unexpected things,-- so just in case, here's an alternative way to access the website:

Type iqnexus.org/mag.htm or just search for IQNexus Magazine. When you reach the website, scroll down to the latest issue, Vol. 10, No. 2, and click on the picture of the magazine cover. Inside the magazine, scroll down past the Table of Contents to our article, which is the first one:

Monday, June 18, 2018

After my customary 5 or 6
hours of sleep, I follow a morning routine. It consists of a series of physical,
mental and spiritual exercises. I believe this routine is what keeps me feeling
young and healthy. I am not fanatic about it however, I vary the routine some
from day to day and may skip parts of it, or even skip it altogether, if
circumstances force me to. For example, it is difficult to do certain yogic
exercises on an airliner flying from the US to the Middle East or Australia.

I am always working on
one or more, sometimes several, math, logic and theoretical physics problems. I
don’t see anything unusual about that, it’s just who I am. And there seems to
be a part of me that continues working even when my body is asleep. It is not
uncommon for me to wake from a deep sleep with the solution to a problem that I
have been contemplating for days, fully completed in every detail in my head.

This morning, after about
six hours of sleep, I did my routine and then began to write; longhand, pen and
paper. I usually transfer such writing to my computer for documentation. This
was no different, and now, I’m going to share this morning’s thoughts with you
here.

BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE

Belief is a two-faced
trickster! A virtual Jekyll and Hyde: Belief can help you arrive at the truth,
or it can totally keep you from knowing the truth. This is so because belief in
something that is false can be just as strong as belief in something that is
real and true.

How can we avail
ourselves of the helpful Dr. Jekyll aspect of belief, and avoid the deception
of the dark side of belief, the evil Mr. Hyde? We must start by looking at the
nature of belief itself in a rational, pragmatic way: Given a certain belief, call
it X, is there a way to test X? Is there a way to prove either that it is valid
and true, or deceptive and false? The
answer is yes, and such a test is the beginning of science.

But, you maybe surprised
to find that even the idea that something can be tested, i.e., be proved true
or false, -that very idea itself- depends on belief: the belief that there is an
undeniable bona fide REALITY, against
which any belief can be evaluated and tested. But, how do we know there is such
an ultimate reality?

QUESTION: Can the belief
that there is an ultimate, undeniable reality be tested? The question is, how
can such a basic belief be tested? Against what?

But, wait! Surely this is
just silly thinking. If I believe that I can fly by flapping my arms like a
bird, I can certainly test that belief by jumping off the roof, out of a tree,
or off a cliff. Which do you think I am going to decide is real: the belief
that I can fly, or the broken bones and bloody pain I experience at ground zero
at the bottom of the cliff?

What have we learned by
this round of thinking about belief? I suggest that we have learned that there
can be questions that appear to be perfectly reasonable questions to ask, that
cannot be answered within the framework of the logic within which the question
is asked. Questioning the existence of reality within the reality we can
experience and know, is an infinite descent into absurdity, like trying to
prove that reality does not exist.

But this realization is
not new. A brilliant mathematician named Kurt Gӧdel proved this in1931! His
proof is contained in the demonstration of the truth of two mathematical
statements called the Incompleteness
Theorems. The essence of the meaning of the proof is that logical questions
can be asked that cannot be answered within the framework of the logic within
which the question is allowed.

By asking a silly
question, we have uncovered a deep truth: The truth or falsity of a belief can only be
tested by direct experience. When I wake up on the ground in pain, I
know that I can’t fly by flapping my arms like a bird in this reality. But
mainstream science ignores direct experience, avoids it like the plague, as something
subjective, and therefore unreal and untestable.

Mainstream science is
based for the most part, on a firm belief in physicalism, better known as the
doctrine of materialism, which says that everything can be explained as the
result of matter and energy interacting in space and time, or in Minkowski space-time
as updated by the theory of relativity. This belief system, a virtual religion
for some, holds that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter and energy, and
that without the existence of certain complex physical structures,
consciousness simply does not exist. But this is a belief that is not provable
within the physicalist paradigm, because a universe without consciousness
cannot be investigated without consciousness. Because of this, materialism is unscientific,
because for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable, and reality
without consciousness cannot be verified without the existence of consciousness.

Let’s see if we can learn
anything by asking another silly question:

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?

When one decides to study
science, as I did, one is told about the scientific method (something that
almost no scientist actually uses). We are taught how to observe, weigh,
measure and question in a way that insures that we will be led to find what the
instructors want us to find. If we find something different, we have to do the
experiment over until we get the desired results.

But, this observing,
measuring and questioning involves standing apart from that which we observe
and measure. It is this forced separation, which is mistaken for and conflated
with objectivity, that makes it so difficult for us to actually know anything! It is this imagined
objectivity that leads us to ask such an absurd question as “What is Consciousness?”
It is this pseudo-scientific method that causes us to believe that if we have a
name for something, we actually know what it is! But having a word for
consciousness does not mean that we know what it is. To begin with,
consciousness is not a what.

When I entered the
academic world in the 1950s, as a physics major, I was taught that realscience
consisted of the mathematically exact discipline of physics and maybe, somewhat
peripherally, its less exact stepchild, chemistry. This teaching was not overt,
but it was implied. Real science involved objectively observing, weighing and measuring
real things, activities that required the use of mathematical tools such as
algebra, trigonometry and integral and differential calculus.

Less demanding, and more logically
vague disciplines like geology and biology involved little or no knowledge of
complex mathematics, just the observation and labeling of things. From the
viewpoint of physics, they were not real
sciences, they were more or less hobbies, like collecting stamps or butterflies.
Psychology was a pseudo-science with ramblings about vague things like feelings
and emotions, things that could not be weighed or measured with any exactitude.
And parapsychology, ostensibly invented by some wacky Englishmen, and just being
introduced in the US by J.B. Rhine at Duke University, should be dismissed as fantasy,
bordering on lunacy. ---Some scientists still see things this way.

So, as a budding
physicist, I knew that I had to have a working knowledge of mathematics. But
when I turned to the serious study of mathematics, by the time I had earned a
degree in the subject, I realized that applied mathematics, the handy tool for
dealing with the quantification of things, actually depends on real mathematics: Underlying applied
math is a mathematical logic more basic than the counting numbers, rational fractions
and transcendental numbers, and the fundamental operations of arithmetic. I
found that real mathematics was far more
interesting than the simple tools that scientists were using for solving quantifiable
problems like the balancing of chemical equations or determining the parabolic flight-path
of a rocket. I was excited that there was a deeper form of mathematics that
depends upon finite distinctions drawn by conscious beings. I realized that at
the root of real science lay the undeniably real functioning of consciousness. The
reality we experience, is a world created by the conscious drawing of
distinctions.

Once you realize that consciousness
is, as Max Planck declared, the reality from which all things arise, including matter, energy, space and time, you
know that the question “What is consciousness?”- A seemingly straight-forward
reasonable question, is one of Gӧdel’s ‘unanswerable’ questions; that is, it is
a question that cannot be answered within the framework of the logical system
within which it is asked. So, does this mean that it can never be answered? No,
we cannot jump that conclusion, because there may be another logical framework,
expanded beyond the simple calculus of applied mathematics, a different
paradigm, within the question can be answered.

In the prevalent materialistic
paradigm, consciousness can have no meaning or independent existence of its own.
If matter and energy, time and space are all there is, then the existence of life
and consciousness are complete mysteries because there is no mechanism by which
matter can become conscious, and even if there were, consciousness could not exist
without a physical vehicle. But, I have direct evidence that this is not true.

I have direct experience
of evidence that consciousness does not depend on the existence of matter and
energy alone. I have had, as have many other people, the direct experience of my
consciousness and other forms of consciousness existing independent of physical
bodies. Let me be clear: I have experienced being consciously outside of my
physical body, observing, without the benefit of physical eyes, things that
were verified after I returned to my body. Not only that, the application of
the calculus of dimensional distinctions, as posted in this blog, as well as in
a number of peer-reviewed publications, proves that consciousness is fundamental
and primary. Some form of consciousness had to exist before any finite
distinction, specifically particles emerging from the big bang, could ever become
stable enough to form atoms and life-supporting chemical compounds.

The knowledge that
consciousness is primary makes asking the question about what consciousness is,
completely improper. Like a fish in water, we are immersed in consciousness,
and in addition to that, since consciousness is primary, everything is derived
from consciousness, and our essence is
consciousness. As consciousness embedded in consciousness, we have nothing with
which to compare consciousness because we have no direct experience of anything
other than consciousness.

Is it not curious that materialist
scientists see it as their primary purpose
to prove that the universe has no purpose,
and that materialist psychologists and philosophers think hard to prove that thoughts
are not real, and believe firmly that
beliefs are meaningless? When will
they wake and realize that their own consciousness is real and that it is part of a Greater Consciousness: The Infinite Reality
that is manifested finitely as the physical universe?